Skuit

If I can find the time, I'm going to rank the draft 'winners and losers' from the MFC's perspective according to this table. Clearly a nerd at heart. But I'm also super-cool because I will be traveling extensively over the next month (alert to any of our sexpats in Thailand and Southeast Asia, let me know where the best spot is to watch our games), so would appreciate any other OCD help in this regard. I may rank it somehow according to draft value points. E.g. Fremantle scored Young at 7 (1644), who was 4th on our list (2044): so a 390-point bump, or equivalent of pick 42 (according to this calculator: https://www.draftguru.com.au/pick-value-calculator). Green was ranked at 3 and taken at 10: an 839 point bonus equivalent to pick 23. Minus Anderson, who by our reckoning they lost 639 points on. Due to the black-spots on the list, it will be far from definitive.

So, our 2019 draft board. Or at least a partial picture from October. This list is compiled courtesy of a snap-shot taken from our latest ‘To Hell and Back’ episode. Hats off to @KK16 for the sharp eyes. He’ll be a useful viewing companion for the upcoming season of Westworld. Provisos: This is not a quarrel: I’m happy with who we got. It’s just a useful fact-check reference for posterity, to combat the likely future speculation/revisionism al a Josh Kelly. There are also some intriguing mysteries still to resolve. Still, I expect at least some posters will say ‘move on’. It may be that this was an accidental leak of club IP – in which case there’s an argument it should be taken down. I don’t want to hurt the club. But I don’t however think it matters, or should matter if we’re serious. Regardless, it’s already forever now in the public domain, and may not even be a mistake. At the very least, we got everyone we wanted above where they were rated. Lastly: we were drafting in part for needs – so this isn’t a definitive ranking of who we considered the best players, just who we would take in order a month prior to the draft. Judging by this preliminary board and who was available at which stage on the night demonstrates that there was at least a little bit of movement before the draft. Ultimately, it’s hard to place Pickett and those around him, as there were other practicalities involved and his worth in the end was effectively bundled with a high second-round pick. There may be some errors in my deductions and placements. Final selection numbers are in brackets. 1 Rowell (1) 2 Jackson (3) 3 Green (10: academy) 4 Young (7) 5 Anderson (2) ……………......... Not visible: 6 7 8 (*traded out) 9 10 11 ..................... Players off the board at the eventual time of Pickett’s selection included Ash / Stephens / Serong / Henry (academy) / and Flanders. We moved down two spots prior to the draft, so (without factoring in pragmatism etc.) we rated Pickett-plus higher than at least some of these players or the possibility of any. 12 (Pickett-plus taken) Players still available at that selection not visible on the board elsewhere: Day / Weightman / Kemp / Georgiades / Dow / Robertson. We also took Rivers ahead of B. Smith, who was ranked at 18 on our early board – indicating that Rivers was in this group. Robertson, judging by draft night footage, was ranked ahead of Rivers. 13 14 15 16 17 ……………. 18 B. Smith (33) 19 De Koning (19) 20 MCasey (6) 21 Schoenberg (24) 22 Gould (26) 23 Bergman (14) 24 Worrell (28) 25 Maginness (29: father/son) 26? (there a few unreadable names on the board in red, including here, which somewhat disrupts some of the deductions made from the list). 27 Mead (25: father/son) 28 C. Stephens? (16) ..................... Another part of the board not visible and a strange gap at 32. Some players in this rough range not visibly featured elsewhere on our board (and where they were ultimately taken) – note: there may be some errors here – include Jones, 30, Perez, 35, Taylor, 36, Coleman, 37 (academy), Evans, 41, O’Conner, 42, Martyn (academy), 44, and Bianco, 46. 29 30 31 32 (strange gap) 33 34 …………........ 35 Cumberland (43 academy) 36 Sparkes (not selected) A wingman, Sparkes was also overlooked at our pick 2 in the rookie draft. Rowels (52 – taken at 4 in the rookie draft) was another player selected early in the rookie draft who was on our board to pick 61 (there’s another strange gap from 62 to 68). .................... 37 Byrnes (52) 38 Rantall (40) 39 Philp (20) 40 J. Sharp (27) 41 Comben (31) 42 Jamieson (49) ……………....... Some remaining mysteries: The strange gaps. Also, the colour-key. Dark blue seems to indicate father-son; orange/light blue (striped with club colours?) maybe ‘academy’. I think it’s actually a mix. There’s also a white border around some of these and not others. Red, I have no idea. Another mystery is the overall green/yellow and then white pattern. It seems to be groupings, but Taheny, at 61 on our board (the last spot before the gap), is rendered in yellow, as is Rowell at 1. Then next to some of the players are ‘traffic lights’ in orange, white and green – hard to make sense of these at all. Would love if other posters could contribute to sort out the errors and fill in some of the mysteries with fresh eyes.

While this is far from solid evidence (and makes no difference now), the narrator states that they gathered in Rye a month prior to the national draft (after GC had received their concessions) and 'currently hold picks 3 and 8'. Coupled with the draft board above it seems probable that Rowell was one overall and Jackson moved ahead of Green into two at some stage. Curious is the phrase re. Green that they've had him at two 'at times', rather than 'previously' - suggesting there was other fluctuation.

I hadn't thought of this. But I'm still not sure if they were referring to our pick or not. The gathering in Rye was mentioned at the time somewhere on these boards, which would provide a timeline and answer.

It seems more like Jackson and Green were alternating at two. It could be that only one of Rowell or Anderson were in number one spot. Or that they were both scratched from the list and someone else was at one.

I don't think this is accurate, Jackson in the video was described as number 2 on the list and Green had been at number 2 'at times' (in a positive sense). Hence they didn't show discussion of our number 1 interest. Could have been anyone.

I don't have anything to add but just wanted my turn at typing Petracca's name.

Still the Central? I'm seen many a glorious victory there, as well as a few horrible defeats dating back before the big-screens: including our 2000 prelim win over the Roos, and our crazy 2002 finals loss against the Crows.

Haha. I'm not a Boomer but I still have no idea. I was born in the brief border years between Gen X and the Millennials: most of us are clueless about both camps. We're also mostly all broke for getting caught in between: hence no spare Kayo cash. I had the Watch AFL subscription last year, but paying to get up at 5am in the morning for a couple hours of regular humiliation always felt rather harsh, regardless of my bdsmfc tendencies.

All these draft concessions are a perfect analogy for capitalism. Somehow you know the whole system is corrupt, but your own small hand-outs are enough to keep you from complaining about system. We got Viney for cheap, but where else have we really benefited compared to all the other clubs?

Cheers FND. But I have no idea if any of that means the match will be live-streamed for free or not. I'm currently overseas, but will probably be in your hood around the time of our first real fixture: where's the best place up north nowadays to watch the real stuff?

Lazy post/can't be bothered with the leg-work. Is the match going to be streamed somewhere?

Yes. The idiocy of my comment probably wasn't apparent by virtue of its idiotic extent. I just saw Weid's name to the left on the followers-line and assumed he was named as a mid. Seems I forgot we don't have any other ruckmen, and also forgot to check who how ruck actually was. Jumped to the conclusion that we were about to unleash our new two-metre mid sensation. Either A) I'm free MFCSS and have ignored most of our inconsequential injury reports. Or B) Am riddled with MFCSS and just accepted that Weid would start as mid to cover injuries.

A meaningless team-sheet for a mostly meaningless game. But Weideman in the centre is curious. Is it possible that they're intending to try some sort of rotation between Weid, Jackson and Brown, with Jackson to get a run through the middle?

Demonland: I hope we don't have too many players selected for the State of Origin match. Demonland: I'm outraged that Clayton Oliver wasn't selected for the State of Origin match.

Did the foundations of our past really create the 'Demon Spirit', or was this concept recently created by our marketing dept.? Never heard of it - but it seems like we're trying to ape the Bloods Culture or Shinboner business.

Dr Georgie Bruinvels: “The menstrual cycle is an inflammatory process and excess inflammation can result in an injury. It’s not solely down to high levels of oestrogen, but tracking the cycle is also very important in terms of bone-injury risk.” Is it that hard to read an article before commenting? (Exceptions granted for those who prefer to avoid the Murdoch press).

The full moon was last week so there goes that hypothesis.

.So that's what Tomald was doing at that angry man conference - brushing up on his exclamations for a vice-Picket role.

I was just playing around in my last post. But seriously, everyone has biases, so if any given captain has x number of favourites, then wouldn't two captains dilute the overall levels of favouritism?

Fixed according to his 1997 grand final stats.

Oh, what could have been in the 2000 grand final if only we'd held onto premiership great Clay Sampson . . .

Que? Wouldn't sole captaincy be the definition of selecting a favourite?

Doesn't have any trouble kicking it beyond 50, but it's the smooth technique which stands out for a ruckman. Dobs one on the siren from outside the arc in this package from last year (1.02: Assist to Dom Barry): https://norwoodfc.com.au/news/five-best-goals-of-2019/

Baulderstone at peak fatness weighed more than Langdon and Lockhart combined.